# Vasconez v. Langston Companies, Inc.

> District Court, W.D. Tennessee · May 24, 2021

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440535

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, W.D. Tennessee
- **Decided:** May 24, 2021
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440535

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
WESTERN DIVISION

WILSON R. VASCONEZ,
Plaintiff,
vs. NO. 2:20-cv-02160-JTF-cgc
LANGSON COMPANIES, INC.,
Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel. (Docket Entry (“D.E.”) #36).
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, the instant motion has been referred to the United
States Magistrate Judge for determination. For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s motion is
hereby DENIED.

I. Background
On March 5, 2020, Plaintiff Wilson Vasconez (“Plaintiff”) filed a pro se Complaint against
Defendant Langston Companies, Inc. (“Langston”) alleging discrimination on the basis of national
origin and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e,
et seq. (“Title VII”). (D.E. #1). Langston is represented in this action by Robert D. Meyers
(“Meyers”) of Glankler Brown, PLLC (“Glankler Brown”).
On May 3, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant motion arguing that Glankler Brown should be
disqualified from representing him in this case due to a conflict of interest. Specifically, Plaintiff
states that, beginning in 2010, former member Andre Mathis and current member Saul Belz of
Glankler Brown represented Plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit filed pursuant to Title
VII and the Tennessee Human Rights Act against a different defendant. See Wilson Vasconez v.
Victor L. Robilio Co., Inc., 2:10-cv-02612-JPM-tmp. Judgment was entered in that case on
February 17, 2012.
Plaintiff now asserts that Glankler Brown is violating Rule 1.9 of the Model Rules of

Professional Conduct by representing Langston. Plaintiff alleges that Glankler Brown must
maintain undivided loyalty to him, its former client, and that it is breaching its duty of
confidentiality by acting adversely to his interests in this case, which he argues is a substantially
related matter.
On May 4, 2021, Langston filed its Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify. Langston
asserts that Plaintiff’s motion is untimely because he filed it six months after Meyers entered his
appearance with the Court. Langston also argues that Rule 1.9 of the Tennessee Rules of
Professional Conduct (“RPC”) applies here and that there is no conflict of interest that bars
Glankler Brown from representing it. See Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.9.

II. Analysis1
Courts view motions to disqualify counsel unfavorably and grant them only when
necessary because they are drastic measures. See Harbin Enterprises Gen. Partnership v. Ingram
Micro Inc., No. 05-2942 Ma/V, 2007 WL 9710345, at *5 (W.D. Tenn. Aug. 15, 2007) (citing
Official Unsecured Creditors Comm. of Valley-Vulcan Mold Co. v. Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp., 237

1 Local Rule 7.2(a)(1)(B) provides that this motion should be “accompanied by a certificate of
counsel affirming that, after consultation between the parties to the controversy, they are unable
to reach an accord as to all issues or that all other parties are in agreement with the action requested
by the motion. Failure to attach an accompanying certificate of consultation may be deemed good
grounds for denying the motion.” Here, Plaintiff failed to attach a certificate of consultation.
Accordingly, this provides another ground for denying it.
B.R. 322, 337 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 1999)). Analysis turns on the particular facts of each case. Harbin,
2007 WL 9710345, at *5 (citing In re Mechem, 880 F.2d 872, 874 (6th Cir. 1989)). Courts must
be careful that the motion is not misused as a harassment technique. Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345,
at *5 (citations omitted).

Since the promulgation of the RPC, federal courts in Tennessee no longer apply the test set
forth in Dana Corporation v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Mutual of Northern Ohio, 900 F.2d 882
(6th Cir. 1990) to determine whether a conflict of interest warrants attorney disqualification.
Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345, at *5 (citing Nat’l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Alticor, Inc., 472 F.3d 436
(6th Cir. 2007); Harvey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30138, at *16 (W.D. Tenn
Dec. 16, 2004)). Instead, federal courts apply the RPC only. Ibid.; see also LR 83.4(c), (d)(B),
(g) (requiring attorneys practicing before this Court to comply with the RPC).
The movant has the burden of proving that opposing counsel should be disqualified.
Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345, at *5 (citing McKinney v. McMeans, 147 F. Supp. 2d 898, 900 (W.D.
Tenn. 2001); Bartech Indus., Inc. v. Int’l Baking Co., Inc., 910 F. Supp 388, 392 (E.D. Tenn.

1996)). “When deciding a motion to disqualify, the Court must uphold the highest ethical
standards of the legal profession and maintain the integrity of the judicial process, while protecting
litigants’ interest and respecting their choice of counsel.” Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345, at *5 (citing
Manning v. Warning, Cox, James, Sklar & Allen, 849 F.2d 222, 224 (6th Cir. 1988)).
RPC 1.9(a) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter
represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that
person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless
the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.9(a). Although Meyers did not previously represent Plaintiff in the
Robilio matter, RPC 1.9(a) should be read in conjunction with RPC 1.10, which provides in that,
“[w]hile lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when
one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so . . . .” Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. 8, RPC
1.10(a); see generally Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345 (applying Rule 1.9(a) and Rule 1.10 together to
determine whether one attorney with a firm could represent the client in the present matter despite

other attorneys with the firm previously representing another client).
Additionally, Rule 1.9(c) provides, in pertinent part as follows:
A lawyer . . . whose present . . . firm has formerly represented a client in a matter
shall not thereafter reveal information related to the representation or use such
information to the disadvantage of the former client unless (1) the former client
gives informed consent, confirmed in writing, or (2) these Rules would permit or
require the lawyer to do so with respect to the client, or (3) the information has
become generally known.

Tenn. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.9(c). RPC 1.9(c) warns against the use of confidential information but
does not mandate attorney disqualification independent of RPC 1.9(a). Harbin, 2007 WL 9710345,
at *9 (citing Sykes v. Matter, 316 F. Supp. 2d 630, 636 (M.D. Tenn. 2004)).
Comment 3 to RPC 1.9 provides guidance on what constitutes a substantially related mater:
Matters are “substantially related” for purposes of this Rule if they involve the same
transaction or legal dispute or other work the lawyer performed for the former client
or if there is a substantial risk that confidential factual information that would
normally have been obtained in the prior representation would materially advance
the client’s position in the subsequent matter, unless that information has become
generally known.

Tenn. R. Sup. Ct. R. 8, RPC 1.9, Cmt. [3].
Here, this case and the Robilio case cannot be said to involve the same transaction or legal
dispute. Instead, the Robilio matter involved Plaintiff’s employment discrimination claims against
another employer over a decade ago. Plaintiff bears the burden to articulate how there might be a
substantial risk that confidential factual information that would normally have been obtained in
the prior representation would materially advance Langston’s position here, and he has not done
so here. Thus, Glankler Brown’s representation of Plaintiff in this case does not violate RPC
1.9(a).
Further, Plaintiff does not argue that any information acquired by Glanker Brown’s former
representation of him has been revealed to Meyers or that it has or is been used to the disadvantage

of Plaintiff. On the contrary, Defendant explicitly denies that it has and explains the steps that it
has taken to represent Langston in accordance with the RPC. Specifically, Glankler Brown states
that it initially performed a conflict-of-interests check before undertaking Langston’s
representation and that this check revealed the firm’s prior representation of Plaintiff. Based upon
that information, Glankler Brown erected a screen preventing Meyers from viewing or having
access to any documents or information related to their representation of Plaintiff in the Robilio
matter. Further, Defendant states that Meyers was not a member of the firm until June of 2013—
after the judgment in the Robilio case—and that he has not spoken to any other Glankler Brown
attorney about the Robilio matter and has not accessed or reviewed the prior file. Defendant
affirms that Meyers possesses no knowledge of Plaintiff not gained exclusively in the course and

scope of this litigation. Thus, Glankler Brown’s representation of Plaintiff in this case does not
violate RPC 1.9(c).

III. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiff’s Motion to Disqualify Counsel is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 24th day of May, 2021.

s/ Charmiane G. Claxton
CHARMIANE G. CLAXTON
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10440535. Public record. Not legal advice.